iands

Thanks @franciswilliamwebb for the clarification on the location.

I take it that those two signals on the left that we can see the back of, in what appears now to be the fence line, are a couple of redundant hump shunt/Toton type signals? Sorry I don't know the area, only guessing.

As mentioned back in February, went on one of the steel works tours yesterday. A thoroughly enjoyable, and interesting, day out. If anyone is thinking about it, and if there are any spaces left for this years programme, I recommend the tour, very impressive. You get to see parts of the steel works not visible from passing on a train or a car. One or two photos, in no specific order;

Phonetic alphabet perhaps = six-nine-zero-zero-seven?

or even a "flyover of bridges" or a "span of bridges".* *Also just made up by me.

Hi Rob, I think you posted same photo on 19th April. Still a good 'in though.

Ah, Bill Boddy. Another former boss of mine when I was at Doncaster. No doubt you you knew a fair few others from York?

Re Tunnels with a low profile top and something different above, does Stansted count?

As I stated previously, I wasn't involved with the Sandy project personally, so I can't comment on the finer points of the details. As to the 'burying of infrastructure, whether it should, or should not, be the case, is a matter of opinion for us 'outsiders' (i.e. those not involved with the project). As for 'relatively straightforward' I did add "and I use that term loosely". It would be 'relatively straightforward' to reinstate because crucially the signalling interlocking is still intact. I wouldn't disagree that a lot of weaselly words are used to justify a convenient solution in lots of things, and not just on the railways. And I would not say that I agree with the rules/procedures/regulations that allows this approach to occur. All the photo shows is an 'option' that has clearly been deemed acceptable (under said rules/procedures/regulations), especially for a relatively small budget project for extending a platform. I'm sure the 'industry' would be pleased to hear suggestions on how to rectify these flawed rules/procedures/regulations. Please also bear in mind that you are communicating with a career S&T engineer (retired).

Going out in the dead of night and installing a buffer stop on a running line would, in my opinion (and no doubt many others), constitute vandalism. I know what you are getting at, but 'Network Change' is a very complex issue.

Bureaucracy may well have gone mad (along with the rest of the world), but it is nothing to do with H&S in this context. It is how the 'privatisation rules/wording' were being implemented/interpreted/imposed on Railtrack (and subsequently Network Rail as the network owners) back in 1994. Although the platform extension has been built over the existing track and signalling assets, believe it or not, the 'network' has not been changed. If 'access' were required to the track/sidings again at some point in the future, it would be 'relatively straightforward' (and I use that term loosely) to reinstate by removing the platform extension build. All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.

I suspect it was a lot more than just ripping up a length of track. Although I wasn't involved with the project, I assume the platform extension work was funded by the TOC and/or DfT, which would only be sufficient to cover the cost of the build itself. To rip out the track would involve the 'Network Change Process' which requires an awful lot of funding, quite possibly 4 or 5 times the actual build cost, not least because all the necessary associated signalling works that would be required (circuit correlation, redesign, implementation works, testing, documents update etc., etc.), and the impact that all this would have had on timescales. The DfT in particular (from my experience) never quite seemed to have a grasp on these realities when trying to push through these so called 'quick fix' projects.

On Thursday I mentioned Sandy and how NR didn't remove a section of track before they built the platform extension. Managed to dig out a photo.

I remember Roger, nice bloke. He became my boss for a while in Intercity S&T HQ at York during the O4Q merry-go-round.

There is a paragraph in the March 1930 LNER Magazine about workers finding a trout swimming round in the tender of No. 657 (Q5 0-8-0) at Stooperdale boiler shops. Also a photo of said trout once it had been caught. 15oz and 13 & 3/4 inches long apparently.

And, no doubt, a healthy chunk of experience?

Some photos of mine whilst on official business, hope they are of some use. Although a swing bridge not a Bow String bridge, the photos show Longitudinal way beams (on the moving part of the bridge) and the transition to ballasted track: Somerleyton. (Apologies for the quality of the images - cheap cameras provided by Railtrack). Similarly at Goole. And two still taken from a cab ride video taken whilst I was working on the East London Line project. The bridge at Haggerston shows ballasted track, whilst a little further along the Bow String bridge at Shoreditch High Street the modern use of 'slab track' was used. Haggerston Bridge S-B.docxShoreditch S-B.docx

At least they removed a section of track in order to build the platform extension - which is more than they did at Sandy.

Possibly it may have been that a '9 to 5' shift didn't qualify as unsocial hours, therefore you didn't get as much pay?

This any use? Theatre Type Route Indicator-Lamp Numbering.pdf

Possibly @ardbealach is referring to the statue - take a closer look. (I'm not a scouser, so only guessing.)

.... and Dalwhinnie April 2021 - points not set correctly, .... signalling system failed to detect this because an unwanted link and a strap were not removed from the internal wiring of one of the point machines when it was replaced ....

Hadn't noticed on first viewing, but the platform lighting is a bit unusual in that the power for the electric lights is fed from open wires on insulating pots on top of the lamp posts. A detail no doubt that would be overlooked on a model of that period.

You're welcome. At the risk of hijacking Dave Fs thread and risking drifting off topic, there were several other examples at the crossings on the stretch of line between Spalding and Sleaford. As well as the previously mentioned York-Harrogate line, Burn Lane (on the former section of ECML between Selby-Templehirst) had a set of block repeater indicators but used in a slightly different way. The crossing had a 'permanent' crossing keeper (the lady of the house) who lived in the house adjacent to the crossing. On her days off, a relief crossing keeper would be ensconced in the gate hut, but when she was on duty she worked the crossing "from the house" (the concept of working from home is not so new after all). Anyone wanting to cross over the line, pushed a plunger that rang a loud sounding bell (an official description) on back wall of the house by the back door, below which was a pair of block indicators similar to what is in Dave's photo above, which saved her time walking to the gate hut to view the indicators there. Thinking about it, they must have been numerous examples all over the country in rural areas, just not something that warranted photographing if at all noticed by railway photographers.

Unfortunately not, I retired just over 3 years ago and wasn't party to the "new/latest" proposals, only the old ones.